Replies to post #17112 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

Does any one know when this issue was "raised" to IDCC? When did IDCC last sign a 3G license? IMO: Only when these questions are answered can you then determine how relevant it is to the future of IDCC.

This issue appears to be a fringe issue that needed be disclosed because it was "raised" to IDCC, but not a material issue that would have stopped Officer sales prior to its disclosure. Perhaps it is Ericy again that has indemnified MOT (in addition to Sony)?

[0nceinalifetime]

Corp, it's important to to think logically here:

"IDCC's statements about essential patents in the 10k are just too strong (plus our new patents in the US and Europe). We have the goods, there is no doubt about that, especially in 3G."

Time and time again IDCC boosters bring up the "essential patents" language. What you must also consider is that it is entirely possible to have essential patents that have already been licensed away and paid for. That's what this whole indemnity thing is all about. It sounds like Qualcomm is claiming they have already paid for the patents that IDCC is claiming are essential. And yes, I know that IDCC also claims they believe they have additional essential patents but this claim is not made as often or as strongly as the primary claim that they have essential patents. In my opinion, those are already licensed by Qualcomm and sub-licensed to all of Qualcomm's licensees. And it sounds like Qualcomm is willing to fight to prove it.

So enough repeating that IDCC has "essential patents" in all 3G standards, the question is "Can they collect on them?"

To me it looks like IDCC is finally being paid off (for 2G) and shut out of 3G once and for all. And you can bet the few 3G licensees they currently have will not continue to pay if no one else is. Any guesses how much IDCC will be worth if this is what we are seeing?

Once